I’m not at all interested in further discussing the arc question with you

So are you saying you don’t want me to send you guys an email? Sorry, this is just confusion and I want to clarify.

I’m not at all interested in further discussing the arc question with you, but the phone call question has spurred some thoughts on blog etiquette. I have posted on such at LGM.

Finally, if you want to build strong intellectual bonds with people, then drop them an e-mail. If I really wanted to talk to another blogger privately, this is what I would do. Scott, Dave, and myself all have available e-mail addresses and can be contacted in such a manner. I suspect that such an approach might have borne considerably more fruit than the one you chose, which was to announce your desire for a phone call in our comments section, then again on your blog.

Rob, isn’t email exactly like blogging, only slower? I think we’d just run into the same problems. However, as a sign of good faith, I’ll send all three of you an email and we can talk.

However, you did say over at LGM that you weren’t very interested in continuing this conversation, so is that your stance or would you like to talk further? Just trying to clarify.

You mentioned, three comments up, that the title of Scott’s post was “pointed”. This suggests that it still bothers you, and that you still don’t grasp the reference.

I won’t speak for Scott, but I suspect that his position on this question is quite similar to my own; he is interested in your argument not because it is YOURS, but because it is part of a public sphere conversation. To move to a private forum would be pointless.

Finally, if you want to build strong intellectual bonds with people, then drop them an e-mail. If I really wanted to talk to another blogger privately, this is what I would do. Scott, Dave, and myself all have available e-mail addresses and can be contacted in such a manner. I suspect that such an approach might have borne considerably more fruit than the one you chose, which was to announce your desire for a phone call in our comments section, then again on your blog.

You still don’t seem to grasp the Simpson’s reference. I suppose that this is representative of the entire conversation; we make points that you don’t seem to understand, so you ignore them.

I didn’t AT THE TIME. And since I was referring to comments I made in the past, I was also referring to my original response.

I am no more interested in what you, as a citizen, think about this topic than I am of any other random American.

Well, I’m asking everybody sure, but mainly Scott. He seemed pretty interested in what I had to say.

This really defeats the purpose of a blog, doesn’t it? I mean, if dialogue requires verbal communication, then why are we doing this?

I understand the point, but this is only ONE medium. I want to build strong intellectual bonds with people. The main way I’ll do this is through the blog, yes, but I don’t want to limit it to just that. Sometimes, like in this case, I think it should move offline. And honestly, I think it defeats the purpose of debate to only limit it to just one medium. Reasonable?

Listen Rob, I understand why you’re not interested, and it’s not like I’m demanding this or calling anybody out. I’m simply putting the option on the table. I think it could have some real value.

“A continuous, immediate dialogue is needed and that’s what a phone conversation can bring.”

This really defeats the purpose of a blog, doesn’t it? I mean, if dialogue requires verbal communication, then why are we doing this? Why did you create this blog, rather than opening the phone book and trying to start conversations with random people? A blog is a public space in which different individuals can make compelling and not-so-compelling arguments. Readers can then evaluate those arguments, comment, link, whatever. A phone call misses the point; I am no more interested in what you, as a citizen, think about this topic than I am of any other random American. I could be mildly interested in what you bring to the public sphere, however (really I’m not, but you keep commenting at LGM and challenging us to a phone call, so I feel compelled to respond). The contribution that you and I are making is a public one; the creation of a record, a debate that is available to anyone. This is the contribution that the blogosphere makes to our political culture, and it doesn’t have anything to do with a conversation that you or I might have. Such a phone call doesn’t do anyone any good except for you and me (and really only you, as I have better things to do with my time), and is certainly a far less meaningful contribution than taking care to make the best possible argument and understand your opponents argument in the most thorough possible way.

Has anyone brought up the controversy that once surrounded Maya Lin’s design for the Vietnam War memorial in Washington? That dealt with the color, the subterranean positioning, among other things.

That’s all forgotten now, in part because of the added statuary (added, in part, because John Kerry and others found the original design objectionable) because once people saw the way the veterans and the families embraced the monument, it became a beloved national icon.

But was there nothing to that but “wingnuttery?”

You still don’t seem to grasp the Simpson’s reference. I suppose that this is representative of the entire conversation; we make points that you don’t seem to understand, so you ignore them.

Fascinating.

Respectfully, I wasn’t about to go point by point down your assesment of my post and comments. I already did that over at your blog. However, a lot of the comments did focus on the shape and how this could only be an arugment that wingnuts would bring up. I certainly don’t think that’s a misrepresentation of your arguments. Pointed? Yes, but then again, so was the title of the original post over at LGM.

Also, I understand that your arguments about this just being a shape and therefore not having any significant meaning in the context of the memorial. I simply disagree. However, I provided links to the comments section so people could read and decide for themselves.

But I am serious about talking about this. The offer is on the table. I honestly think it would be a good step towards becoming more understanding of where each other is coming from. I appreciate that you don’t think the substance of our arguments will change much, but I think things get lost when you have to read somebody’s comments and then respond. A continuous, immediate dialogue is needed and that’s what a phone conversation can bring.

My cell phone is always open.

And after that comment, the floodgates opened with comment after comment about shapes and wingnuttery, and on and on.

If that’s all you took from what we tried to make clear in those comments, then clearly I am incapable of explaining why I find your position crazy in a way you can understand. Perhaps this failing is yours, perhaps it is mine. There’s no way to know for sure. But moving the discussion to another medium isn’t likely to make the substance of our arguments any clearer.

Alterman’s phrase might become … has sent 40 percent of the National Guard to Iraq and Afghanistan, the better to create more terrorists and let bin Laden get away. Better. Pithier. Still a damned lie, of course.

Beg to differ. “To” can convey intentyionality, or it can simply be the infinitive particle. “In order to” unambiguously conveys intentionality, and that’s why it exists alongside “to”. Alterman’s problem is simply that he has difficulty with our language. He should be grateful when someone points out a mistake, and take it as an opportunity to improve.

Topngue really out of cheek now.

He sounds like a cranky old toad who cannot face a challenge from someone younger, especially if the kid happens to be right on something. I know exactly how it feels.

Tongue out cheek. How long has Alterman’s family been in the country and in exactly what generation does they plan on breaking down and finally learning English?

As for centrists never pissing anyone off – looks like we shot that canard in the butt. :-)

It seems the word your friends are having trouble with is not “crescent� but “centrist.� Centrist doesn’t mean you never piss anyone off. It doesn’t mean you never find yourself arriving, by a different route, at the same position an ideologue comes to by following the talking points. It doesn’t mean you take your stands by measuring the distance between fringes and planting your flag at the midway point.

Well, respectfully, they’re not my friends. You are a friend Cal. They’re blogosphere acquaintances.

And I agree about being a centrist. Honestly, this is a centrist blog simply for the fact that both sides are aired. I don’t consider myself any true “centrist.” However, the debate has devolved, and as you’ve heard me say many, many times before, somebody has to step and say enough is enough.

As you know, Donklephant exists to bridge that ever widening gap. I don’t know if we’ll succeed, but I sure as hell am glad we’re trying.

And to the Lonely Federalist, your comments are much appreciated, although I don’t think we really deserve them.

Although I would definitely agree with that “unsung” part. ;-)

…has sent 40 percent of the National Guard to Iraq and Afghanistan in order to create more terrorists and let bin Laden get away.

I hate the phrase “in order to.” You never need it; it means nothing and it just clots up the sentence with nonce words. “To” is always sufficient.

That said, there’s only two possible ways to read the above-quoted passage: The writer literally meant it, or the writer didn’t literally mean it and was presuming his readers would understand it as sarcasm.

Remember the flap we had over Robert F. Kennedy doing the same thing?

Sarcasm is a very dangerous thing to try to write. You can’t give the usual verbal clues (rolling eyes, droll tone of voice) in print. When I was a reporter, I used to hate it when someone I was interviewing used a lot of sarcasm. If you just printed his words, you’d be making him say awful things you’re sure he didn’t mean. But if you made elaborate descriptions of his gestures and expressions that accompanied the quote, you’d be granting him a benefit of the doubt you might not make for other, less sarcastic people, and even then a lot of readers likely wouldn’t get it.

Basically, sarcastic quotes, however good, were all but unusable.

And as an Internet writer, unless you know your audience perfectly — and are confident it knows you so well it will recognize your sarcastic intent without fail — don’t do it. You invite tragic misunderstanding. Of course you can always retort with wounded dignity, as your buddy Alterman dies, but then you can easily look like an ass doing that, too.